1. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced in the vide judgment dated 27.06.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Chittorgarh in Criminal Original Case No. 258/2004 (182/2001), whereby the learned Judge convicted all the four accused petitioners namely Suresh Chandra, Prahalad Roy, Shanker Lal and Smt. Sushila for the offence under Sections 19/54 and 19/54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced them to undergo two years simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default in payment of fine to further undergo three months' S.I.
2. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 17.11.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 105/2009, whereby the learned Judge while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under Section 19/54 and Section 19/54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, modified the order of sentence by reducing the same from two years to six months S.I. and in default in payment of fine to further undergo one month's S.I.
3. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revisions are that on 08.01.2001 Shri Rajendra Pareek, Excise Officer was on patrolling duty. He received a secret information that Suresh Chandra, Shanker Lal and Prahalad were carrying illicit liquor in a jeep bearing registration No. RJ-06C-5579 from Gandhi Nagar to Chittorgarh. Upon the said information, Nakabandi near Maharana Pratap Marg was conducted and the suspected jeep was intercepted which was driven by Shanker Lal and two persons who were sitting on the rear seat were Suresh and Prahalad. Upon search, 4 plastic bags containing 700 pouches of countrymade liquor were recovered. Shanker Lal was not having driving licence. The vehicle was registered in the name of Smt. Sushila. The accused were arrested and First Information Report No. 100/2000 was registered at the Police Station Kotwali, Chittorgarh under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act against the aforesaid petitioners. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate framed charge and the read over the same to the accused-petitioners Suresh Chandra, Shanker Lal and Prahalad under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and accused Sushila for the offence under Section 19/54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act and upon denial of guilt by them, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Accused Shushila was examined as D.W.1. Then, after hearing the learned for the parties and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for offence under Sections 19/54 and 19/54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgment dated 27.06.2009. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, an appeal was preferred by all the accused. The learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.11.2009 partly allowed the appeal filed the petitioners while maintaining conviction of the accused and modified the order of sentence awarded awarded to them by reducing the same from two years SI to six months SI along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default in payment of fine to further undergo one month's SI. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.
4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that they will not assail conviction of the petitioners and confines their arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. They further alleged the matter pertains to the year 2001 and the petitioners were of young age at that time. They have already suffered agony of protracted trial of about 23 years. The maximum sentence awarded by the trial court is simple imprisonment of two years which was modified by the learned appellate Court to six months S.I. They remained in custody for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal. They are not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against them. No adverse remark has been passed over their conduct except the impugned judgment. They are living peacefully since last two and half decades, thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail at this stage. With these submissions, learned counsel pray that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time and it was the first criminal case registered against them.
6. Since the revision petitions against conviction are not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and modified by the appellate court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction the same is maintained.
7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in these cases pertain to the year 2001 and the matter relates to recovery of illicit liquor and the revision petitions are pending before this court for last 14 years. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioners have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 22 years and have been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. The maximum sentence awarded by the Court below is two years' simple imprisonment and the same was reduced by the appellate Court to six months. On a perusal of the record, it is revealing that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time. They were not previously convicted in any case and it was the first criminal case registered against them. They are living peacefully for last two and half decades as not report contrary to the same has been received by this court. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioners deserve to be dealt with leniency. The petitioners also deserve the benefit of the consistent view taken by this Court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 [LQ/SC/1998/294] and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 [LQ/SC/2012/43] and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of petitioners, their criminal antecedents, period of incarceration, their status in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioners is reduced to the one already undergone by them.
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 27.06.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Chittorgarh in Criminal Original Case No. 258/2004 (182/2001), as well as the judgment dated 17.11.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 105/2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court under Section 19/54 and 19/54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, is modified to the extent that the sentence the petitioners have undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.
9. The revision petitions are allowed in part. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
10. The record be returned to the trial court.
